Do you really want to say that reading from disk is faster than processing the text using CPU? I don't know how complex syntax of mw actually is, but C++ compilers are probably much faster than parsoid, if that's true. And these are very slow.
What takes so much CPU time in turning wikitext into html? Sounds like JS wasn't a best choice here. On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gabriel Wicke <[email protected]> wrote: > We don't currently store the full history of each page in RESTBase, so your > first access will trigger an on-demand parse of older revisions not yet in > storage, which is relatively slow. Repeat accesses will load those > revisions from disk (SSD), which will be a lot faster. > > With a majority of clients now supporting HTTP2 / SPDY, use cases that > benefit from manual batching are becoming relatively rare. For a use case > like revision retrieval, HTTP2 with a decent amount of parallelism should > be plenty fast. > > Gabriel > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:24 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think your subject line should have been "RESTBase doesn't love me"? >> --scott >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > > > > -- > Gabriel Wicke > Principal Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
